13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/1

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2012 ‘Delivering European Renewal’ (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2012 based on the legislative and work programme of the European Commission (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 to the European Spring Council 2012 on the Draft Treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the economic and monetary union (3),

—

having regard to the existing Protocol of cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions signed on 16 February 2012,

1.

is convinced that, while the European Union is faced with enormous challenges in addressing the ongoing financial, economic, social and political crisis, there is an urgent need for an ambitious European Commission 2013 work programme that would boost sustainable growth, job creation and quality of life in Europe and contribute to restore the citizens’ confidence in the European integration process;

2.

considers that recovery must rest on two equally important pillars of structural reforms: relaunching growth and ensuring budgetary discipline;

3.

supports deeper economic integration and better alignment of policy priorities, revenues and spending between all levels of government, while respecting the autonomy and powers of national, regional and local governments; based on the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance, rejects any implicit or explicit renationalisation or centralisation of policies;

4.

requests the European Commission to resist attempts to use inter-governmental agreements to bypass the democratic procedures of the Union, as agreed in the Treaties, without calling into question the enhanced cooperation provided for under the Lisbon Treaty;

5.

recalls the CoR position (4) that an early adoption of the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for the 2014-2020 period at the end of 2012 is an important signal that the EU is able to respond to global challenges with its own strategy for growth, jobs and competitiveness and a prerequisite for guaranteeing that cohesion policy will remain uninterrupted operational;

6.

reiterates that the EU budget is an investment budget, that proposals for financial cuts in programmes which are part of the EU growth agenda must be rejected and that the creation of new own resources is needed, in particular with a view of replacing national contributions to the EU budget;

7.

reiterates the determination of regional and local authorities to be involved in the simplification of EU funds and the revision of the Financial Regulation, in order to cut red tape, increase the leverage effect of public funds at EU, national and regional levels, as well as ensure transparency and accountability for the EU taxpayers;

8.

is of the view that the European Commission should present an analysis of the impact of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union on local and regional authorities and - in particular - on the question how the remit of local and regional fiscal autonomy is preserved;

9.

supports efforts to ensure budgetary discipline, in particular with regard to tackling high levels of public debt which are a serious threat to intergenerational solidarity, and notes that adequate capacity among local and regional authorities can at the same time ensure growth through appropriate investment via for example implementation of projects co-funded by European funds and public procurement;

10.

reiterates its call on the Commission to mainstream Article 9 TFEU on the promotion of high levels of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion in all its proposals; therefore urges the Commission to present balanced recommendations related to the European Semester and to bear these treaty obligations in mind in any legislation related to the economic and financial crisis;

11.

asks the Commission to cooperate with the Committee of the Regions in elaborating a European Administrative Procedures Act;

12.

emphasises that while the European Semester should contribute to economic growth, fiscal discipline and structural challenges, the European Commission and the Member States must also closely anticipate and monitor the impact of these measures on the autonomy of local and regional authorities;

13.

broadly welcomes the new Compact for Growth and Jobs as decided by the European Council of June 2012, and supports its call to ‘mobilise at every level of governance in the European Union all levers, instruments and policies’, to reach the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy (5);

14.

supports the European Commission’s efforts to improve the governance arrangements and in particular the partnership principle in the drawing-up, implementation and evaluation of the National Reform Programmes; however, calls on the European Commission to include an assessment of these aspects in each of the Country Specific Recommendations;

15.

recalls the need to include delivery-oriented structures such as territorial pacts in the National Reform Programmes (6); moreover, recognition and support should be given to initiatives that foster competitiveness and innovation at the local and regional level, such as the European Entrepreneurial Regions label;

16.

is looking forward to reinforcing its co-operation with the European Commission throughout the Europe 2020 policy cycle and requests to be involved in the preparation of the Annual Growth Survey;

17.

suggests that the European Commission provide regular updates on the implementation of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives by particularly reporting on the involvement of local and regional authorities in their implementation;

18.

asks the European Commission to outline in 2013 in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the strategy how it wants to ensure a closer involvement of local and regional authorities in that respect;

19.

demands that any redirection of unused structural funds into a new growth agenda shall respect the principles of subsidiarity and involve local and regional authorities;

20.

encourages the European Commission to further address key challenges such as youth unemployment and employment for workers over the age of 55 years, and socially disadvantaged groups, taking into account the key role of local and regional authorities; invites in particular the European Commission to present a draft Council recommendation for a Youth Guarantee Regulation; calls for the inclusion of a concrete local and regional dimension in the National Job Plans;

21.

invites the Commission to ensure that the forthcoming Recommendation on child poverty and child well-being incorporates the suggestions outlined in the CoR’s Opinion on Child Poverty of February 2012 (CdR 333/2011), particularly the adoption of a comprehensive strategy against child poverty and social exclusion that includes national, regional and local levels as well as the setting-up of a monitoring framework based on sound indicators, also linked with the existing reporting mechanism under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The CoR is convinced that in 2013 an evaluation of the impact of the crisis on child poverty based on specific reporting from Member States under the NRPs and the Europe 2020 strategy is needed;

22.

recalls that in times of crisis and austerity the EU budget should lever as much public and private co-financing as possible at all levels of governance (7); regrets the lack of statistical data that would allow a robust evaluation of such leverage and multiplier effects;

23.

supports the European Commission’s intention to present a report on the quality of public spending (8) recommends a separation of current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid investments with long-term net benefits being calculated as a negative;

24.

underlines that synergies can in particular be sought between the EU, national and sub-national budgets, provided that proper and effective coordination mechanisms are in place, such as interoperability between public administrations dealing with budgetary matters, harmonised public-finance accountancy rules and budget cycles and comparable budget structures, and invites the European Commission to issue a Green Paper to explore possible concrete measures in this area;

25.

calls on the European Commission to include a Single Market Act III in its 2013 Work programme, which should include all remaining policy initiatives from the Single Market Act on which action has not yet been taken and keep a balance among the economic, social and governance pillars with respect to the four fundamental freedoms;

26.

requests the Commission to give particular attention to further improving cross-border labour mobility safeguarding workers’ rights and calls for an improved system of recognition of qualifications in order to support the mobility of professionals;

27.

encourages the European Commission to withdraw its Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action in the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services which has triggered the early-warning on subsidiarity by 12 national parliaments;

28.

underlines the important role of SMEs in economic regeneration and employment at the local and regional level; this can be further enhanced through the participation of SMEs, universities and local and regional authorities in EU research and innovation funding programmes;

29.

calls on the European Commission to enable easier access for SMEs to finance and to public procurement contracts as well as to further reduce administrative burden;

30.

expects the European Commission to involve the CoR in the review of the flagship initiative on Industrial Policy;

31.

supports the European Parliament request to the Commission to submit, by January 2013, a proposal for a directive, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to ensure access to basic payment services for all consumers legally residing in the Union;

32.

reiterates its call for a European agenda for social housing, which clarifies the competition rules applicable to social housing and empowers local and regional authorities to provide decent and affordable social housing, to promote social mix and to fight discrimination;

33.

asks the European Commission, after the withdrawal of a first draft regulation for the statute of European mutual societies, to rapidly present a revised draft proposal;

34.

urges a follow-up in 2013 of the Energy Roadmap 2050 to ensure that the local and regional authorities are enabled to bring their contribution to the promotion of decentralised sustainable energy, and energy infrastructure such as smart intergrids, as a key element of resource efficiency and the green economy; therefore calls on the European Commission to develop a comprehensive investment framework with a time horizon of 2030, so as to provide the required certainty for both market actors and local and regional authorities;

35.

calls on the European Commission to assess the options for an additional decentrally-managed financial instrument to stimulate the implementation of the Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs) by regional and local authorities and, notably by Covenant of Mayors’ partners; also supports better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and conservation in future EU funding programmes (9);

36.

asks the European Commission to take steps towards resolving connectivity problems between Member States and between regions in Member States; and to promote measures that facilitate the spread of micro-production of energy and its integration into the distribution grids;

37.

calls for access to loans from the European Investment Bank for investments in the areas of energy efficiency and renewables to be facilitated for small and medium sized businesses and local and regional authorities;

38.

insists on the need to meet the target of early 2013 for the adoption of the legislative package on Cohesion policy 2014-2020 in order to allow local and regional authorities to start Structural Funds programmes on 1 January 2014;

39.

calls on EUROSTAT in conjunction with national statistical agencies to address the need for more timely comparable data on regional GDP;

40.

recalls the need to take the territorial dimension of EU policies into account in a more coherent and stringent manner; suggests that the European Commission include these elements in its future impact assessment activities and report on them regularly (10);

41.

invites the European Commission to extend the scheme of temporary posting of EU civil servants to the sub-national level (instead of focussing on the national level only) in order to improve knowledge within the European institutions of the practice of implementing EU legislation and projects at local and regional level;

42.

looks forward to the forthcoming proposal on the future of EU ports policy; asks that the proposal be subjected to a territorial impact assessment, and is ready to contribute to this exercise;

43.

points out the importance of sustainable urban mobility and suggests the promotion of electronic and smart ticketing across all modes of transport, including bus, rail, ferry, car sharing, bike sharing and road tolls, with the aim of encouraging better interoperability between systems and increasing the use of public transport;

44.

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving air-quality problems has been placed on local and regional authorities (11); looks forward to proposals how to address these problems in the forthcoming review of the EU air quality legislation;

45.

expects that in this review the levels of ambition and timeframes of EU emissions (source-based) policy and emissions policy are aligned and that in particular the NEC directive (National Emissions Ceiling) is reinforced in order to reduce background concentrations; that standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter are tightened and emissions from shipping, air traffic and agriculture are also tackled, while simplifying the indicators and criteria for measurement; it also calls for the integration of EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular transport, housing, industry, energy and climate;

46.

demands that the EU Adaptation Strategy for climate change include a section on specific adaptation action at regional and municipal level as well as guidelines and support for local and regional decision makers, the setting up of a working group on adaptation strategies in particularly vulnerable European regions, bringing together representatives of the CoR, DG Climate Action, the EEA, the JRC and local and regional networks and associations should also be explored;

47.

stresses the need for a targeted Communication on ‘A new EU quality scheme for local food products’ as local food systems support the local and regional economy by providing employment in agriculture and food production;

48.

would advocate greater flexibility on the part of the Commission in helping to overcome the deadlock between the European Parliament and the Council over the legal basis of the multi-annual plans for the fisheries sector, and trusts that the package of proposals on reforming the common fisheries policy will expand initiatives to promote decentralisation of fisheries policy and implementing measures that provide a response geared to the needs of coastal regions and regions bordering inland waterways and the challenges facing them;

49.

supports the development of the sea basin strategy approach as a integrated maritime policy tool but considers that these strategies, such as the strategy that will be adopted for the Atlantic Area in 2013, must include a stronger territorial dimension and learn from the lessons of the macro-regional strategy approach;

50.

calls for the local and regional dimension to be taken into account in initiatives to build upon and strengthen citizens’ rights and in efforts to restore citizens’ trust in the EU and its institutions, and insists on the need to involve children and young people given their ability to exercise citizenship rights and responsibilities; calls on the Commission to focus on this challenge in the activities planned in the framework of the European Year of Citizens 2013 to which the CoR intends to contribute;

51.

is committed to contributing to the follow-up of successful European Citizens’ Initiatives in cooperation with the other EU institutions;

52.

requests that the access of local and regional actors in the European neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries to the specific EU funds for this area be facilitated and supports the opening of existing programmes, including EGTC to partners in neighbourhood countries;

53.

reaffirms its intention to continue the positive cooperation with the European Commission in the context of the Local Administration Facility programme in order to improve local capacity building and promote knowledge of EU and its procedures in candidate and pre-candidate countries; invites the Commission to explore the possibility of expanding it to local governments in the ENP countries;

54.

trusts that its recommendations will be duly considered in the process of preparing the Commission work programme for 2013 and instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit the present resolution to the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU and the forthcoming Irish and Lithuanian Presidencies.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/6

—

underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union;

—

believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change, with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety;

—

believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination;

—

calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP.

Rapporteur

Nichi VENDOLA (IT/PES), President of the Puglia Region

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility

COM(2011) 743 final

1.

stresses the importance of the global approach as a reference framework for the European Union's action regarding the worldwide governance of migration and mobility, and as an instrument offering an overall view of migration policies, designed to make the European Union's external relations and development policy activities consistent with its immigration policies;

2.

welcomes the European Commission's initiative of presenting an updated version of the global approach which is more structured and centred on migrants and on respect for human rights in source, transit and destination countries alike;

3.

reaffirms the human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to that country (1), as the legal basis for any discussion of migration, and the need to promote migration by choice, regardless of the reasons underlying it or the specific requirements of the country of destination (2);

4.

underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union;

5.

believes that effective protection of human rights must be guaranteed when establishing entry opportunities for third-country nationals and in policies on the reception and integration of migrants;

6.

stresses that readmission agreements and visa facilitation agreements, both of the Union and of the Member States, and all actions to combat irregular immigration, must fully respect human rights, in accordance, in particular, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as consistently stated by the European Court of Human Rights;

7.

stresses that the need to contain migratory flows must never be allowed to take precedence over anybody's right to seek international protection in the Union, which must remain a place of refuge for people fleeing persecution or in need of protection;

8.

notes the risk that the economic crisis affecting most countries of the European Union may exacerbate the inherent tension between border control policies and respect for the human rights of migrants;

9.

believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change (3), with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety (4);

10.

calls on the European Commission to publish the working paper on migration and climate change originally envisaged in its Communication on migration of 4 May 2011 (5);

11.

considers that in order to make the global approach effective it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the European Union and the national, regional and local levels, and with third countries;

12.

reiterates what the Committee of the Regions has previously stated, i.e. ‘local and regional authorities are first to be significantly affected by a common immigration policy. On the one hand, they are particularly affected by the difficulties of illegal immigration, while, on the other, they are responsible for providing immigrants with a range of services as part of the local integration process. For this reason they must be fully involved in the development of a European framework for legal immigration, in measures to combat illegal immigration and in development cooperation with countries of origin’ (6);

13.

welcomes the considerable progress made on making transfers of money by migrants to their countries of origin more transparent and secure and less costly, and supports the initiatives backed by the European Commission to channel remittances of funds from migrants towards productive investment;

14.

is pleased that the global approach stresses the role which third-country nationals living outside their countries can play both in development policies and in the regulation of migratory flows, promoting support measures on departure and integration measures in the countries of destination;

15.

believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination;

16.

considers that regional and local authorities are key actors in the global approach, as both promoters and implementers of social and employment policies, reception and integration policies, and the management of irregular immigration, and also as organisers of in-depth dialogue and varied forms of cooperation with countries of origin and transit (7);

17.

notes that regional and local authorities already promote dialogue initiatives with their counterparts in third countries, many of which are countries of origin and transit for migrants, and promote decentralised cooperation projects;

18.

believes that ARLEM – the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly – and CORLEAP – the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership – should be seen as ideal fora for dialogue with the regional authorities of the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe on immigration and development policies;

19.

believes that the greatest possible compatibility should be sought between Member States' bilateral initiatives and the existing regional and bilateral dialogues, which are viewed as an instrument of the Union's external policy in the field of immigration, and that one way of ensuring this is through full recognition of the dialogue initiatives promoted by regional and local authorities;

20.

urges the institutions to see regional and local authorities as leading players in the global approach, in accordance with their competences in the national context, by means of instruments which allocate Union funds to them, without the intervention of central government authorities, and in accordance with the existing differences within the various Member States;

21.

urges the Commission to promote innovative projects to help match employment supply and demand, using regional and local authorities as intermediaries, given their competences in this sector in many Member States, with a view to creating an effective instrument for tackling the skills shortage in certain segments of the labour market;

22.

wishes regional and local authorities also to be involved in the updating of the EU immigration portal, thereby ensuring that it offers relevant information for immigrants regarding regions, cities and municipalities of destination;

23.

stresses the importance of ensuring that the Union's migration and development policy and its external immigration and asylum policy are mutually consistent at all times. In particular, the Union's and the Member States' actions in third countries should always be based primarily on the principles of solidarity and co-development, in order to tackle the underlying causes of migration and to defeat poverty, paying particular attention to the mobilisation of domestic resources in those countries, as well as support for strengthening institutions and improving governance and the rule of law, which are key to fostering economic and social change;

24.

urges the Commission to distribute resources to developing countries, on the basis of development cooperation principles, priorities and strategies, while also taking account of the ‘more for more’ principle;

25.

believes that the principle of reciprocity must dovetail with development cooperation principles, particularly in the context of mobility partnerships and the common agenda on migration and mobility (8);

26.

considers that when implementing the global approach, adequate protection must be provided for all vulnerable groups, in particular unaccompanied minors, both by guiding actions properly in third countries and by offering appropriate forms of reception and social integration in Member States, while also fostering the dissemination of the good practices of many regional and local authorities in the Member States; also asks the European Commission to effectively implement the measures contained in the action plan on unaccompanied minors;

27.

calls for a bona fide gender-based approach with a view to enhancing the specific role played by women in migration and in the social integration of the whole family group in host countries;

28.

points out that the Union's immigration policy could contradict its development cooperation policies, since it seeks to attract talent from third countries in pursuit of the economic and demographic development objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

29.

questions whether the brain drain caused by the policy of selective migration can be contained by means of circular migration, since it is not yet at all clear how effective it will be and what real impact it will have;

30.

believes also that circular migration may be not be compatible with the objective of integrating migrants and that integration strategies should therefore be drawn up which are specifically aimed at these workers, so that they can integrate effectively despite the fact that their stay in the European Union is not intended to be long-lasting (9);

31.

believes that the recognition of diplomas and qualifications under harmonised conditions is crucial in terms of preventing ‘brain waste’, ensuring the proper integration of migrants and their reintegration into the country of origin in the case of circular migration;

32.

calls on the European Commission to back measures to support States in the process of simplifying the recognition of diplomas and qualifications, and to promote informal recognition of skills, with a view to facilitating the movement of third-country workers within the European labour market;

33.

trusts that requests for third-country cooperation in containing migratory flows will never lead to the denial of each person's human right to leave a country, including their own, particularly when third countries are asked to control emigration on the basis of the laws of the State of destination;

34.

believes that there must be greater investment in development cooperation projects aimed at the education and health sectors, directly involving universities and promoting the mobility of researchers and all academic staff;

35.

supports the petition submitted to the European Parliament for the adoption of a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programme, as a specific instrument for reciprocal mobility between students from each shore of the Mediterranean;

36.

wishes the mobility of young people, and of students in particular, to be effectively promoted, including by simplifying the issuing of visas, cutting red tape and allocating sufficient financial resources;

37.

believes that the Erasmus for all programme should be fostered and supported, as well as the existing good practices in exchanges amongst young people, such as the Eurodissey programme promoted by the Assembly of European Regions;

38.

considers that more analysis is needed of the migratory pressures caused by economic imbalances, with a view to devising effective responses; these should include schemes which also guarantee mobility for unskilled workers, for whom there is still a great demand in certain Member States, which cannot be tackled solely by means of circular migration;

39.

believes that third-country nationals living outside their countries should also be involved in pre-departure measures, making use of existing websites directly managed by immigrants' associations, which provide ad hoc information in a language understood by potential migrants;

40.

welcomes the enhancement of pre-departure measures, which require more investment, involving NGOs already operating in the countries of origin of migrants and the local and regional authorities involved in procedures for the reception and integration of migrants and their families;

41.

welcomes the Union's commitment to combating irregular immigration, and in particular the smuggling and trafficking of human beings and measures against employers of irregular workers;

42.

stresses the importance of an approach to combating irregular immigration which considers that migrants may be possible victims of illegal human trafficking and must therefore be protected;

43.

urges the European Commission to continue initiatives to analyse and combat undeclared employment, which is a scourge for the entire Union's economy and provides an incentive for the entry of irregular migrants, who may then be exploited in the labour market or used as a tool of criminal networks;

44.

notes that considerable financial resources have also been invested in measures to combat irregular immigration, not least the border-control operations carried out by the Frontex agency;

45.

stresses the need to respect human rights, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, at every stage in border control, and the related obligation for the EU institutions – in particular the European Parliament – to closely monitor Frontex's activities;

46.

believes that there should be similar checks on international cooperation directly managed by Frontex, which has the power to conclude international agreements of a technical nature with third countries: the content of these should be more transparent and their scope precisely stipulated;

47.

considers it necessary to carry out careful cost/benefit assessments of all existing instruments in order to compare their efficiency, including the costs of repatriation procedures (detention and forced removal) and the amount of resources spent by States on voluntary repatriation compared to forced repatriation;

48.

believes that insufficient flexibility in national legislation should not mean that foreign nationals residing legally become irregular and increase the number of ‘overstayers’;

49.

believes that the European Union institutions and the Member States should give serious consideration to the possibility of entry into the European Union to seek work, as expressly mentioned in Article 79(5) TFEU;

50.

considers that providing regular entry channels is a key instrument for combating irregular immigration and reducing the number of ‘overstayers’, as well as ensuring a degree of solidarity in relations with countries of origin of migratory flows;

51.

urges the institutions to incorporate the readmission strategy in the global approach, in order to ensure that the strategy is underpinned by development cooperation principles and does not become a separate or conflicting aspect;

52.

believes that readmission agreements must be subject to periodic assessments, particularly with regard to the obligation for transit countries to re-admit not just their own nationals but also foreigners who have passed through their country on the way to the Union. These people could find themselves left in no-man's-land, exacerbating the situation in transit countries and putting them at serious risk of human rights violations;

53.

considers that strengthening third countries' asylum systems must not be seen as a way to avoid recognising the right to international protection in the EU;

54.

welcomes the fact that, in regional protection programmes, the Union has acted in conjunction with the UNHCR, although the protection provided by the Union is greater than that recognised by the Geneva Convention on Refugees, since it also includes subsidiary protection and protection against treatment violating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

55.

considers that the Union's action must never be aimed at preventing asylum seekers from leaving a country in order to seek protection in an EU Member State;

56.

believes that the Dublin II regulation must be revised, particularly in view of the clear criticism from the Court of Justice of the European Union, in order to guarantee effective solidarity between the Member States, while fully respecting human rights, including the right to family reunification;

57.

calls on the Commission to include clauses to protect asylum seekers and refugees in mobility partnerships;

58.

urges the institutions, together with the Member States, to make the sea search and rescue system more effective, in particular by improving coordination and setting common criteria for identifying the most appropriate safe location for rescued migrants to disembark;

59.

calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to keep open the debate on the four pillars of the global approach, so that all potential stakeholders can be fully involved in its implementation;

60.

calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP;

61.

calls on the European Commission to continue its analysis of the causes and characteristics of migration worldwide, with a view to devising effective strategies for dealing with it which are based on solidarity with third countries;

62.

deplores policies which criminalise migrants and welcomes measures to combat the criminal networks to which they fall victim;

63.

calls for a policy to combat irregular immigration which is not based solely on border controls and the interception of migrants on departure, but also on effective legal entry opportunities which are also open to less-skilled workers, taking into account the specificities of the individual Member States.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/12

—

points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement;

—

points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities;

—

points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows;

—

underlines the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum, and points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers;

Rapporteur

Theodoros GKOTSOPOULOS (EL/PES), Municipal Councillor, Pallini, Attica

Reference

Communication from the Commission on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum – An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust

COM(2011) 835 final

1.

points out that mixed migration flows are a feature of everyday life in all the EU Member States where they are currently making the headlines, mainly because of the political upheavals in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, but also because of the broader political situation in areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Iraq and Iran, which is prompting fresh displacements of people towards Europe. These migration flows are placing a burden to differing degrees on the EU's external borders and, as a consequence, on the asylum facilities of some Member States, thereby generating humanitarian challenges;

2.

emphasises that the acute economic crisis affecting the EU's Mediterranean countries in particular, which are receiving a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, and their subsequent inability to manage this issue as effectively as is needed, are negative factors in terms of taking the situation in hand and are worsening an already bleak situation;

3.

deems it necessary to draw up a meaningful common European migration and asylum policy, in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm programme. It should be anchored in an integrated approach, based partly on the effective management of legal immigration and combating illegal immigration, but also and above all on strengthening asylum systems;

4.

points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement;

5.

refers to the rights associated with the right to asylum, i.e. the right to dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment, the protection to be given in the event of removal or expulsion, separation or extradition and the right to effective remedy and fair judgment, together with the right to family reunification;

6.

recognises that progress has been made in establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) but believes that it is necessary to repeat the call made by the Stockholm programme for this to be completed by 2012 and to call on the Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to demonstrate the political commitment needed to conclude negotiations on reviewing the directives governing reception conditions and asylum procedures, together with the reform of the Dublin Regulation and the Eurodac system;

7.

stresses that it is intended that the CEAS be guided in its action by the practical defence of the rights of individuals who need international protection and not just by the desire for security in the narrow sense of the term or to safeguard national sovereignty;

8.

wishes to affirm that a truly common asylum system is based on uniform rights and procedures across the whole of the EU, in order to eliminate the risk of major disparities in the way such cases are handled, and therefore approves of the efforts being made to amend existing legislation with a view to moving towards the introduction of common rules rather than minimum standards;

9.

points to the recent rulings by the courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg (1) which, more than anything else, highlight (a) the major shortcomings in existing legal arrangements and more specifically, the Dublin Regulation and (b) the loopholes which, in the current tense climate, seriously threaten the protection of the rights of those seeking international protection and which stem from differences in the political, legal and practical approaches pursued by the various Member States. These rulings underline the need to establish a common European asylum system in due and proper form and, as part of this undertaking, to strengthen the Dublin Regulation with provisions that address the causes of the crises and thereby ensure that the shortcomings inherent in the individual Member States' systems do not have damaging effects, either on the systems as a whole, or on the protection of human rights;

10.

feels that, faced with the scale of migration, major changes must be made to EU asylum policy and that the need to implement effective policies and methods is becoming urgent;

11.

points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities;

12.

recognises that solidarity is closely linked to responsibility and encourages all Member States to put their own house in order by honouring and enforcing the commitments they have made at international and EU levels. Nevertheless, the Committee emphasises that a narrow concept of responsibility must not be set up as a prerequisite for solidarity in legal or practical terms; there are cases in which a practical show of solidarity can be useful in helping to ensure compliance with commitments;

13.

points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity, as set out in Article 80 TFUE, is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil - whether they be economic migrants or applicants for international protection – and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows;

14.

notes that the Commission communication provides an analytical description of the current situation and lists the tools available for enhancing solidarity, but nevertheless laments the absence of proposals for positive measures to encourage solidarity and make it easier to share responsibilities;

15.

welcomes the Council initiative to establish a ‘common framework for solidarity towards Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, including through mixed migration flows’ (2);

16.

nevertheless emphasises that positive measures to encourage solidarity and shared responsibilities would mean stricter observance of human rights and the concepts of justice, fairness, cooperation and political involvement. These provisions would need to comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

17.

points out in this respect that it is not possible to consider the European Commission's communication entirely in terms of complying with the subsidiarity principle, insofar as it essentially describes the way in which the existing instruments and EU legislation can help enhance solidarity. However, to the extent that it refers to possible future initiatives, relating, for example, to programmes for relocating recognised refugees, or regulations for jointly considering asylum requests where there are grounds for believing that they would have repercussions on matters which had hitherto been closely linked with questions of Member States' national sovereignty (such as considering asylum applications or the reception of asylum seekers) and which could have broader political, legal or financial implications, the Committee calls on the European Commission to pay the due and necessary attention to their drafting;

18.

points out that the concept of solidarity also has an external component which, in this case, relates to the solidarity between the EU and other regions of the world affected by humanitarian crises and which, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), take in the overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking international protection. It is therefore essential for Member States to work with third countries on development cooperation in an attempt to create better economic and social conditions and to consolidate peace. However, support for third-country asylum systems cannot be considered as a means of avoiding granting the right to international protection within the EU or of transferring procedures outside its borders, but must be seen simply as a tool for improving economic and social conditions in third countries;

19.

calls on the relevant institutions and the EU Member States to do more to actively urge the countries bordering the EU to meet the obligations they assume both under international law and vis-à-vis the EU and the Member States, particularly relating to countries that have reached readmission agreements with the EU;

20.

emphasises the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum. Local and regional authorities situated close to the EU's external borders particularly find themselves on the front line as regards implementing European asylum legislation and the CEAS. The same applies to municipal authorities and major conurbations, which record a constant increase in flows of refugees and asylum seekers. Local and regional authorities play an important role in the reception of asylum seekers, refugees and beneficiaries of international protection and, in some Member States, are responsible for initial contacts with the new arrivals;

21.

underlines that, despite the well-established role they play, local and regional authorities are not included at all in the concepts of solidarity and the sharing of responsibilities, which at present apply only to the Member States. Furthermore, programming and discussions at political level only take account of the financial impact on Member States and not the repercussions for social cohesion felt at local and regional levels when receiving third country nationals, whereas it is the regional authorities that are called upon in the first instance to deal with the issue;

22.

consequently plans to directly draft positions and proposals calling for local and regional authorities to be able to be actively involved in the arrangements for relocating refugees and in operating the mechanisms for delivering help, support and solidarity for people seeking the right to asylum or who have been granted it; indeed, in some Member States, legislative measures have already been adopted which recognise this type of responsibility for regional governments;

23.

points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that, with their long and remarkable history of cooperation with NGOs and civil society organisations they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers;

24.

stresses the need to thoroughly overhaul the Dublin Regulation, within the framework of the European Commission's 2008 proposal (3). To date, merely the fact of implementing the criterion of the first point of entry in the Union has helped to increase tensions in certain Member States' asylum systems and means that implementing this regulation is simply a matter of geographic location, which makes a mockery of the concept of solidarity. The Committee therefore urges Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to draw up a new procedure for crisis management and examine some positive solidarity measures likely to mitigate the harmful consequences these arrangements have so far had;

25.

recalls that in a previous opinion (4), it had welcomed the European Commission's proposal that transfers of those seeking international protection under the terms of the revised Dublin Regulation should be temporarily suspended when a Member State is faced with a particularly urgent situation which might place an increased burden on its reception facilities or asylum infrastructure. However, it completely understands the difficulty involved in gaining acceptance for and implementing such a measure and appreciates the relevance of the counter-proposal advocating the creation of an early warning and assessment mechanism that would cover all operational aspects of the Member States' asylum systems;

26.

given the comments above, considers it appropriate to emphasise that the effectiveness of this proposed early warning and assessment mechanism will depend to a large extent on the availability of reliable and up-to-date information, sound cooperation between the Member States and the EU's ability to make good any shortcomings and rectify as quickly as possible any potential problems flagged up. Moreover, the Committee draws attention to the invaluable help that might be provided by organisations such as the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and national refugee councils, together with other NGOs and, above all, local and regional authorities;

27.

believes that the proposal to extend the voluntary relocation of recognised refugees, using the pilot programme operated in Malta as a model, is a positive step towards enhancing solidarity. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission and the Member States to consider the possibility that such relocation might become mandatory under certain circumstances (for example, when requested by the Member State in question, or when a conclusion to this effect has been reached previously in the context of the early warning mechanism and the European Asylum Support Office has given its opinion on the matter, or even when the persons in question agree to the measure). It calls on the European Commission and the Member States to seriously consider whether those seeking international protection might also be the subject of relocation and, accordingly, calls on the European Commission to review the legal, economic and technical study that has been carried out (5);

28.

notes that practical and legal difficulties have been observed with regard to relocation due to the lack of a system for the mutual recognition of international protection decisions; for this reason calls on the European Commission to consider the necessary measures to address the situation;

29.

agrees with the UNHCR's proposal for establishing a ‘formula’ for ensuring that a relocation system works and takes account of aspects such as the GDP of the country concerned, its surface area, its natural and other resources, its population, reception facilities, the total number of arrivals requesting asylum and its resettlement commitments, to list just a few criteria (6);

30.

welcomes the recent decision of the European Parliament leading to the conclusion of the common European resettlement programme, which it feels will help enhance the external dimension of solidarity, and calls on Member States to honour the commitments they have entered into as part of the UNHCR's programmes in the meantime;

31.

welcomes the prospect of a joint examination of asylum applications involving as many Member States as possible, the EASO and possibly the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, whilst nevertheless pointing out that this must be done in compliance with the principle that those requesting international protection must be examined individually. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to carry out a legal, economic and technical study and to inform it of the findings;

32.

also considers that Directive 2001/55/EC, which provides for a specific and exceptional solidarity measure to give temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and to ensure a balance of efforts between Member States, is of the utmost importance, even though it has not been implemented to date. The Committee therefore considers it appropriate to revise the Directive so that it is easier to determine, on the basis of objective and quantitative criteria, that a mass influx of displaced persons is actually taking place, and to consider, moreover, whether the system might be triggered by a request to this effect from one or several regions;

33.

welcomes the fact that Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of long-term residents has been amended so that it also covers beneficiaries of international protection. In practice, this extension will mean that after a five-year residence period and subject to certain conditions, recognised refugees will be able to settle in a Member State other than that which first conferred international protection. Although this does not, strictly speaking, constitute a solidarity measure, this decision could conceivably help to reduce pressure and improve integration. The Committee accordingly calls on Member States to swiftly transpose amending directive 2011/51/EU (7) into their national legislation;

34.

notes that practical cooperation is a basic pillar of the CEAS and welcomes the substantial contribution made by EU bodies, one of the foremost of which is the EASO, and also Frontex, which helps to deal with certain practical situations of an exceptional nature, for example in the cases of Malta and Greece, whilst pointing out that the actions of these specialised bodies must be accompanied by guarantees for maintaining the rights of those seeking international protection;

35.

believes that it is particularly important to avoid practices that result in making it impossible to exercise the right to apply for asylum. The Committee consequently calls on Frontex to focus more clearly on respect for human rights when undertaking the tasks conferred on it in terms of protecting the EU's external borders. It considers that a first step has been taken in this direction with the recent amendment of the regulation establishing Frontex, which makes it compulsory for this body to draw up a fundamental rights strategy, set up an advisory forum and create a post with responsibility for fundamental rights (8). In this respect, it recognises the role likely to be played by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), which has already looked into the human rights situation at the EU's external borders (9), and encourages it to broaden its investigations in this area and to allow Frontex and the EASO to benefit from its advice and know-how;

36.

underlines the need to enhance the EASO's operational capabilities in order to render it more effective in assisting local and regional authorities with its immediate support, expertise and technical know-how and calls for a closer involvement of LRAs in the EASO's consultative forum; welcomes the European Commission's stated intention to assess the effects of the EASO's activities in 2013 and expresses its desire to be involved in this initiative;

37.

deems education to be of supreme importance as a more specific practical cooperation measure on the part of the EASO and insists on the possibility of greater practical harmonisation that will finalise and comprehensively implement the European asylum curriculum. With this in mind, the Committee proposes that the EASO create training programmes that could be useful for officials in local and regional administrations when they are involved in receiving those seeking international protection;

38.

recognises that the EU has created a range of useful instruments over the past few years, the foremost of which is the European Refugee Fund, which enables Member States to implement European asylum policy more effectively;

39.

welcomes the proposed simplification in the architecture of the European funding mechanisms for asylum and migration through the proposal to create a Fund for migration and asylum, which will have a budget of EUR 3,87 billion for the integrated management of migratory flows and will cover various aspects of the common asylum and migration policy over the period 2014-2020. The Committee hopes that this development will go hand in hand with a streamlining of procedures;

40.

stresses the need for sufficient funding to be allocated to measures to enhance solidarity, which could involve supporting the efforts agreed for improving the basic conditions of asylum systems when necessary, giving practical assistance to Member States and regions under exceptional pressure or implementing relocation or resettlement programmes;

41.

emphasises that it is essential that the funding allocated to asylum and international protection match the EU's international commitments so that a due and proper balance may be created between expenditure on security and border management and spending on areas such as reception conditions for asylum seekers, which are areas in which local and regional authorities can provide significant added value;

42.

urges the European Commission and the Member States to do their utmost to fully implement the principle of partnership on which the operation of the Fund is based, so as to guarantee that all local and regional stakeholders are involved in identifying funding priorities and assessing the initiatives undertaken; this implementation should adhere to the implementing framework laid down in Chapter IV of the proposed regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2011) 752 final);

43.

therefore calls on each Member State to make provision for representatives from their local and regional authorities to be involved in the political dialogue for establishing the Fund's annual priorities (10).

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/18

—

supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning;

—

underlines the need to counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men;

—

highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family;

—

emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport;

—

highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect;

—

stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies;

—

deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities to be necessary and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in the implementation of cohesion policy;

—

welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms.

Rapporteur

Hella DUNGER-LÖPER (DE/PES), Plenipotentiary of the Land of Berlin for Federal and European Affairs

1.

appreciates the fact that the Danish presidency of the EU has referred this subject to the Committee for an opinion and also that the presidency played an active part in the 5th Summit of the Regions and Cities, held in Copenhagen on 22 and 23 March 2012, the topic of which was ‘The European urban fabric in the 21st century’, thus expressing recognition of the contribution that cities and regions make to European integration and their key role in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy goals;

2.

is interested to note the European Commission’s report on Cities of Tomorrow: Challenges, visions, ways forward (October 2011) and shares the view set out therein that the city of tomorrow will be ‘a place of advanced social progress with a high degree of social cohesion, socially balanced housing as well as social, health and “education for all” Services’, ‘a platform for democracy, cultural dialogue and diversity’, ‘a place of green, ecological or environmental regeneration’ and ‘a place of attraction and an engine of economic growth’;

3.

shares the concern expressed in the above-mentioned report about the future of cities, in terms of potential threats from demographic change, negative growth and the weakening links between economic growth, employment and social progress. Further potential threats are to be seen in growing income disparities, increasing social polarisation and segregation and the rising number of ‘dropouts from society’, as well as in urban sprawl and the increasing pressure on urban ecosystems;

4.

stresses that the European Union as a whole can only achieve the Europe 2020 strategy goals if cities, in their capacity as a locus of social and economic innovation, are in a position to contribute fully to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and to economic, social and territorial cohesion;

5.

therefore welcomes the recommendations of the Cities of tomorrow report that cities be strengthened by promoting sustainable local structures to create a resilient, inclusive economy, by making use of the potential offered by different generations and socio-economic, cultural and ethnic diversity and by combating social exclusion and poverty through: improvements to housing; a holistic approach to environmental and energy policy strategies; the creation and upkeep of attractive open public spaces; support for sustainable, inclusive and health-promoting transport systems; and the promotion of balanced territorial development;

6.

supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that includes all levels of government and policy areas and takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning;

7.

refers to the Committee of the Regions’ Copenhagen Declaration of 23 March 2012, which called for greener, more socially inclusive and more economically competitive cities, urging the EU institutions to embed the Europe 2020 strategy locally, provide adequate financial resources for a cross-cutting urban policy, give greater priority to territorial cooperation between European cities and give cities and regions a bigger role in shaping European policies, undertake more efforts to promote decentralisation in EU Member States and provide cities and regions with more financial leeway;

8.

points out that its opinion on The role of urban regeneration in the future of urban development in Europe of 10 June 2010 advocated strengthening the urban dimension of all European Union policy areas;

9.

notes that cities have always reflected the social conditions of the time. The shape of the cities of the future and the quality of life they provide will be hallmarked by economic and social decisions and developments at all levels of political and economic responsibility;

10.

points out that the importance of cities for the European Union goes far beyond economic and demographic aspects. Beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green and inclusive cities provide a basis for people in our society to live together in harmony with mutual support;

11.

highlights that cities are closely and inextricably linked with their surrounding areas through social and economic ties, and for this reason too have an important role to play in balanced territorial development;

12.

stresses in this connection that the rigid distinction hitherto drawn between cities and their surrounding areas will no longer be suitable for dealing with the issues that will crop up in the future and must give way to an approach to interaction based on functionality and interdependence;

13.

underlines the fact that European cities, in comparison to other cities across the world, are hallmarked by democratic self-determination, strong civil society, social integration, effective interaction between what is private and what is public, an assurance of freedom and emancipation and a highly developed urban planning culture;

14.

has noticed that de-industrialisation and globalisation have meant that key foundations for social and economic integration have disappeared. In both prosperous and poorer areas, new strategies are being deployed to reinforce social cohesion, which until now, at least, have barely managed to stem the trend towards increasing segmentation of society. Instead, social divisions and segregation are on the increase in many places, despite the afore-mentioned efforts to the contrary, and they pose a major challenge for people living together in urban areas;

15.

points out that it is urgent that we counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men; points out that economic development and the creation of more jobs in cities are crucial in this respect;

16.

is concerned to note that these problems have been exacerbated in some big cities, resulting in violent protests. They also express many people’s distrust of the political establishment;

17.

points out the local impact of demographic change and an ageing population, which is creating new demands on social infrastructures and public areas. The growing phenomenon of poverty in old age is creating a need for sustainable social security systems and services which are accessible, sensitive to cultural differences and affordable;

18.

stresses in this connection that Europe, despite today’s drastically high levels of youth unemployment, will in the coming decades depend on young immigrants to generate economic growth and to cushion the impact of the aging population on social security and health systems. Open, attractive cities are necessary to encourage immigration. Nevertheless, in cities immigrants and ethnic minorities have until now often suffered significant discrimination in access to education, employment, housing and medical care. Effective local integration strategies are therefore a necessary integral part of any forward-looking migration policy;

19.

highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family. That is why any measures that contribute to a positive population growth should be supported;

20.

emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport;

21.

highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect. Urban culture also covers the preservation of urban architecture and planning concepts, good quality public spaces accessible to everyone and consideration of local and regional features;

22.

stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies, so as to win people’s trust and strengthen social cohesion; this participation of citizens is only possible if cities’ administrations are open and transparent about the principles underlying their decisions and policies;

23.

deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities through programmes and initiatives to be necessary, since local authorities which do not have adequate financial resources of their own are dependent on such support;

24.

is concerned to note that despite the declarations of intent contained in the Leipzig Charter, and the associated political process, Member States’ commitment to urban policy in the last few years has waned rather than waxed. This is illustrated by the fact that to date it has scarcely been possible to give priority to urban policy issues in relevant policy areas such as employment, the environment, education and science, and housing. This problem is also reflected in reduced budgets for urban policy programmes. EU level resources should be identified and deployed as quickly as possible to allow cities to respond flexibly to these different problems;

25.

is concerned at the fact that local authorities’ budget allocations are catastrophically low in most Member States and that, given national budgetary priorities, this is not going to improve unless the Member States change tack on this issue;

26.

sees that, given the current acute social, economic and environmental threats, efforts to date have been woefully inadequate for shaping European cities in such a way as to put them in good stead for future, so that they are competitive, beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green, inclusive places where social innovation flourishes, thus able to make a full contribution to strengthening the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European Union and to implementing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy;

27.

assumes, given the social challenges faced today, that there is general interest at all political levels in cities being robust and underpinned by democratic self-determination, providing a solid foundation for European society. Strong, responsive and effective local democracy can make a decisive contribution to restoring people’s confidence in the institutions of representative democracy at all levels;

28.

reiterates its call for an approach to social development which does more than measure gross domestic product (GDP), but takes public concerns and needs seriously and does more to involve the public in the planning of programmes and measures;

29.

expects elected representatives to be confident and bold in taking the lead at all political levels, working to ensure that people can live together in peace and solidarity. Smart, inclusive and sustainable growth can only develop out of peace and real solidarity which stretches across borders. This means having a culture which actively welcomes immigrants, entailing measures to promote intercultural responsibility in public administrations and institutions. It also means ensuring that a clear commitment is made to the protection of refugees and others who, because of their origins, beliefs, sexual orientation, membership of a certain social group or political persuasion, suffer political persecution and discrimination;

30.

stresses the importance of integrated local strategies for a coordinated, efficient use of resources and calls for all relevant sectoral policies to be brought into play here. Constructive, self-evident cooperation between all political levels and departments is important for showing the public that institutions know how to handle the trust placed in them responsibly and are sensitive to local needs;

31.

calls on decision-makers at all levels to strive to secure healthy, sustainable mobility within and between cities. Public transport should be encouraged, making it accessible to the whole population; also calls on them to continue to develop cities in line with the traditional European urban model by integrating different uses, density and (urban and architectural) quality;

32.

advocates renewed efforts to consolidate knowledge about technical, social, economic and environmental aspects of urban development. This has to explicitly include the importance of virtual forums for life and work in cities and the regions;

33.

underlines the significance of partnerships between cities, European city networks such as EUROCITIES, and transnational inter-municipal cooperation projects under the URBACT, INTERREG and EGTC programmes, designed to improve urban development policy know-how and approaches; it also stresses the need to ensure that this exchange of knowledge bears fruit and helps shape policies, especially on the Structural Funds, but also in other relevant areas such as services of general interest, transport and environmental protection;

34.

calls for cities and regions to be involved in the European Union’s multi-level structures as a matter of course in all policy areas where decisions made at EU level affect sub-national authorities’ power to act;

35.

urges the European institutions to make a clear commitment to making cities stronger, reflected in the priorities of the upcoming EU budget;

36.

underlines its call for structural support policies which continue to allow local authorities enough leeway to adopt a multi-fund, integrated approach geared to local priorities, which is based on investment and social initiatives and meets local needs. So that it is also actually possible for local authorities to implement Structural Fund policy, expenditure on administration and monitoring activities should be pruned;

37.

emphasises the importance of cohesion policy as a key instrument for consolidating social, economic and territorial cohesion, and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in implementation. Given the major importance of cities for social, economic and territorial cohesion, such support must go far beyond the minimum quota of 5 % proposed to date;

38.

stresses the calls made by the Committee of the Regions in its opinion on the Commission proposal on the ERDF, particularly as regards the possibility of resource deployment being ‘flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them’, so that rural and peri-urban regions are not prevented from benefiting from the ERDF. The various types of priority area into which ERDF resources will be channelled should be determined as part of a partnership-based planning process, and not be determined beforehand. The delegation of tasks to cities under the ‘integrated territorial investment’ instrument defined in Article 99 of the Common Provisions Regulation should be viewed as optional and not made mandatory;

39.

welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which, over and above public subsidies, constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms;

40.

calls for cities and regions to play a major role in further developing the EU’s immigration and integration policy, taking account of the key importance of local administration for integration;

41.

urges Member States to impart new dynamism to their urban policy endeavours and also to incorporate policy areas other than spatial planning into these initiatives. Sustainable urban development depends on supportive framework conditions, especially in employment, social, educational and environmental policy;

42.

urges a livelier debate on actions to be taken in and with cities. Cooperation between cities and urban agglomerations is vital for ensuring cohesion and sustainable development.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/23

—

welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget;

—

affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union;

—

stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms;

—

welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects;

—

believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities.

Rapporteur

Samuel AZZOPARDI (MT/EPP) Mayor of Victoria, Gozo

Reference documents

1.

welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget (1);

2.

supports the simplification of the existing instruments, merging them into 2 funds;

3.

affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union;

4.

stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms;

5.

underlines that this can be achieved through the implementation of coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice based on respect for human rights, solidarity and responsibility with particular attention given to gender equality and non-discrimination (2);

6.

believes that a balance is needed between the security and border related parts of the expenditure, and expenditure in areas such as integration of migrants and reception conditions for asylum seekers;

7.

supports the creation of a needs-based budget that helps to develop synergies between EU financial instruments, notably between the structural funds and funds in the area of home affairs. The Union budget should attribute adequate resources to the area of home affairs, both through the structural funds and through specialised instruments within the area of freedom, security and justice;

8.

points out that the repeal of Council Decision 2007/125/JHA, which takes away the possibility of making complementary use of other Union and Community instruments, significantly restricts the desired flexibility in the use of financial instruments and threatens the seamless continuation of cross-border regional projects in the field of internal security that have previously been funded via ERDF-based objective 3 support; therefore advocates retaining complementarity between Community instruments;

9.

points out that a certain degree of flexibility is needed in the operation of the budget and financial instruments, making a genuine midterm revision possible in accordance with the political priorities identified, whilst stressing that such flexibility must be developed to co-exist with the fair allocation of resources;

10.

welcomes an immigration policy starting in countries of origin and taking account of European labour market needs and demographic change, leading to a system which is beneficial to all parties, including countries of origin so often benefiting from remittances from the EU (3);

11.

emphasises the necessity for strong cooperation at EU level to achieve better coordination between Members States on managing the Union’s external borders, as well as moving towards a Common European Asylum System;

12.

stresses the need for transparency in the use of the budget with proposals, projects and results achieved visible and easily accessible to and understandable for the ordinary citizen;

13.

welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects;

14.

highlights the need for independent monitoring and evaluation to ensure efficient use of funds and strong management by implementing organisations. This may be an incentive for improving institutional performance. Qualitative as well as quantitative indicators must be selected in a participatory way by all stakeholders. The Committee points out that certain qualitative indicators can be efficient and cost effective. The Committee also calls for a strengthened European Commission and Parliament oversight of the Funds to help bring about the independent element of monitoring and evaluation;

15.

believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities;

16.

points out that with the positive aspects of simplification and flexibility, the proposed reforms also bring uncertainty regarding allocation of resources between different sectors and thematic issues. It therefore stresses the importance for funds to be allocated on a needs-basis through a thorough needs-analysis with prioritisation following a rights-based approach. This can be achieved through mechanisms and safeguards put in place to ensure efficient prioritisation, including LRA and other stakeholders’ participation when drawing up national strategies;

17.

highlights the need to distribute funds evenly according to institutional capacity and project proposals and not to focus the funds on just a few recipients;

18.

in case of insufficient funds, believes that funds aimed at protecting people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, including those dealing with basic living standards, gender specific issues and the right to asylum, should be prioritised, together with resources for capacity building of LRAs to manage migration flows;

19.

stresses the importance of a participatory approach in achieving effective results, and supports proposals that oblige the Member States to organise partnerships with all public authorities concerned and with relevant stakeholders, including civil society and international organisations, for the development, implementation and monitoring of the national programmes;

20.

therefore it urges that partnership of stakeholders is strengthened and made mandatory. It points out that currently, the principle in the Draft Regulation laying down the general provisions (4) might not bring about participation in a sufficiently binding manner. Whilst coordination mechanisms are bound, in other areas there is a lot of discretion as to whether a meaningful partnership will actually take place or not;

21.

suggests that it may not be appropriate to nominate a single Responsible Authority for all actions supported by the funds, despite the simplification that this may bring with it. Transparency and the checks and balances must be in place to ensure fairness in decisions. It is concerned that there may be legal issues that do not allow a delegated authority to work under the supervision of the national Responsible Authority and therefore suggests that regulations should be flexible enough to cater for all national rules in place in the EU and must not force the Member States to change their constitutional structures if the objectives can just as well be achieved in a partnership approach;

22.

welcomes steps towards a ‘Common European Asylum System’ whilst stressing that it must aim to achieve the standards of those with better systems and structures and not lead to a general reduction in quality in line with those with less strong systems;

23.

would like to see greater clarity as to whether EASO will only use the funds directly allocated to it or whether it will also be able to access the Home Affairs Funds;

24.

notes with approval the acknowledgment of the importance of LRAs in the reception and asylum systems as well as in the integration of third-country nationals and legal migrants;

25.

praises the idea of focusing on the most vulnerable, including victims of trafficking;

26.

highlights that integration must focus on long-term sustainable actions, keeping in mind that integration is a two-way process where actions can be targeted towards host and migrant communities;

27.

suggests that the Home Affairs Funds should also support actions recommended by the European Commission, recognising the multilevel governance approach in the 2nd European Agenda for Integration (5);

28.

points out that administrative detention practices around the EU have been under scrutiny by the ECHR and human rights authorities and stresses that funding of projects linked to detaining people must ensure that such detention is in line with EU law and ECHR decisions;

29.

stresses that family members benefitting from international protection in different Member States should be allowed to live together and benefit from protection in the same Member State;

30.

emphasises that Europe's border regions must receive more adequate support with regards to asylum and migration, especially in times of particular difficulty (6);

31.

stresses that criteria and mechanisms for relocation must be of a non-discriminatory nature and focus on the most vulnerable, whilst also keeping in mind EU labour market considerations, particularly for persons currently stuck in areas where access to the labour market is limited. They should not focus on prioritising those highly skilled and already integrated into the host society;

32.

points out that LRAs are in good position to participate in establishing such mechanisms (7);

33.

is of the view that solidarity in supporting burdened countries should be conditional on human rights records and respect for EU reception standards, thus providing incentives for improvement;

34.

welcomes the establishing of an EU resettlement programme and encourages the creation of a clear framework to be developed by a partnership between EASO, UNHCR and NGOs, keeping in mind the best practices in other parts of the world. The EU should lead by example, seeking to identify and provide protection to those most forgotten by the international community;

35.

highlights the need for incentives and information on benefits to increase the number of places pledged by Member States for resettlement;

36.

stresses the need to maintain a clear distinction between resettlement from third countries and intra-EU relocation, as well as the number of persons allocated for these two programmes;

37.

reaffirms that programmes should, as a matter of principle, be operated on a purely voluntary basis and in line with the goals of development cooperation, resulting in the long-term social integration of the people concerned (8). Return must be viable and ensure that no new migration project is initiated (9). This could be achieved through partnerships with a specialised international organisation such as IOM;

38.

points out that successful return strategies cannot be sufficiently measured with the purely quantitative indicator of the number of returnees. The indicator could be chosen as the number of returnees in relation to the number of cases and taking into account long-term quality factors;

39.

highlights its own indispensable involvement in the process of improving Europe's internal security together with the need for capacity building of LRAs;

40.

stresses that ISF funding must keep in mind the necessity to invest in further research and to carry out innovations and sharing of expertise in fields such as cyber security, forensics, the protection of vital infrastructure and urban security and that the European Commission promotes this in line with the increased need to address ever more specific and complex problems;

41.

reaffirms the importance of LRA involvement for police and security cooperation which can occur through training, sharing of best practices and prevention programmes as well as through the development of common tools and IT systems as well as better communication;

42.

recommends that current local and regional authority networks are strengthened and used in each Member State, or if the need arises new ones are set up, to facilitate the exchange of good practice in relation to social integration, professional learning and understanding of violent extremism growing out of local districts and neighbourhoods. This could support the work undertaken through the recently created European anti-radicalisation network;

43.

suggests that funding under the ISF includes public consultation at a local level in Member States and reaching out to those who feel disconnected from society. This can help to establish a multifaceted understanding of local experiences and concepts of terrorism and motivations towards extremism;

44.

highlights the importance of increased scrutiny of bank and business practices to identify and target the finances of terrorism and organised crime through money laundering and coupling of criminal activities with businesses with a legitimate aim;

45.

equally recalls the importance of the confiscation of criminal assets, which is indubitably an important avenue for combating any kind of crime right across the board, and therefore welcomes the fact that the European Commission has proposed legislation to strengthen the EU legal framework on confiscation (10);

46.

points out that whilst public-private partnerships could have positive impacts, privatisation of security should be avoided;

47.

emphasises the need to fund border control adequately (11). Simultaneously considers that, in view of tackling irregular migration, it is questionable whether investing heavily on border control is the most effective and efficient way to bring about long term and meaningful change;

48.

highlights the need for independent monitoring of border actions by an organisation such as UNHCR to ensure that fundamental human rights, including gender sensitivity, are being respected;

49.

stresses that consideration for human lives should take precedence over all other issues and calls for more collaboration and sharing of responsibilities amongst Member States of rescued people to provide incentives to rescue. It feels that automatic responsibility sharing could help save more lives at sea;

50.

welcomes changes aimed at increasing the speed of response to emergency situations;

51.

urges the Commission to commit itself to the planning and development of cross-border operations that involve the active participation of border regions. This would enable regions to pool their experience in civil protection and provide a solid operational base on which to build a European emergency response force;

52.

calls on the Commission to take on a role of increased direct management in emergency situations to maintain a level of over-sight and help with cross-border coordination;

53.

encourages Member States to set up multi-disciplinary teams for rapid emergency response, especially when the emergency situation has elements such as mixed flows of migration where expertise in asylum law and human rights are essential;

54.

points out that some emergencies may be longer term situations and that funds for emergencies must be available as long as the emergency lasts;

55.

welcomes a more coherent approach to the internal and external aspects of migration management and internal security, pointing out that cooperation and dialogue with third countries are necessary to both deal with irregular immigration and focus on legal migration;

56.

points out that local and regional authorities that are closest to or have the strongest links with third countries can provide the vital links for EU cooperation with those countries, making a substantial contribution to improving relations and living conditions in cities and regions of origin and transit (12). Through its cooperation with local and regional authorities in enlargement and neighbourhood countries (e.g. Working Groups and Joint Consultative Committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM), the CoR is well placed to promote the objectives of the funds beyond the EU borders;

57.

does not see a clear line between development and non-development activities with regards to third countries and calls for coherence and coordination between aid and development funded projects and home affairs projects, driven through a spirit of solidarity and responsibility sharing with third countries;

58.

calls for safeguards to prevent Members States from pursuing their own national interests through the external aspect of the Home Affairs Funds as well as for mechanisms to ensure transparency in bilateral cooperation between Member States and third countries.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/43

—

considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship;

—

believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone;

—

finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

—

reiterates its commitment and willingness to supporting the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship;

—

calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes;

—

suggests that one representative of the Committee of the Regions may be involved in the advisory procedure.

Rapporteur

Mr VARACALLI (IT/ALDE) Mayor of Gerace

Reference documents

1.

considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship; together, these programmes intend to support activities carried out in the Member States with a view to raising awareness and understanding, supporting the implementation of Union law and policies in the Member States, promoting transnational cooperation and improving the knowledge and understanding of potential issues in the relevant policy areas with a view to ensuring evidence-based policy making and legislation. The Europe for Citizens programme, in particular, aims at promoting the development of a European citizenship;

2.

believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone;

3.

considers that the proposals are also in line with the proportionality principle, having verified in particular that their form and content correspond to what is likely to be required in order to achieve the intended objectives, and that the total financial envelope for the three programmes appears sufficient for their effective implementation, given that this envelope has been maintained in line with that granted to the programmes currently in force for the same areas of action and that, inter alia, provision has been expressly made for upward revision in the event of accession of a new Member State;

4.

appreciates, with a view to the improvement of regulations, the impact assessments accompanying the proposals, which are deemed sufficiently justified and comprehensive, taking into account the fact that the Commission also consulted stakeholders during the preparatory phrase and the relevant results were fed into the impact assessment, and a similar consultation was held at various levels with local and regional authorities;

5.

finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

6.

hopes that the programmes will continue to contribute to the gradual achievement of a better understanding of the EU by citizens, particularly by providing incentives for active civic involvement, and to significantly strengthen awareness;

7.

also hopes that the implementation of the Rights and Citizenship Programme (with regard to the specific objective of ‘[contributing] to enhancing the exercise of rights deriving from the citizenship of the Union’) and the Europe for Citizens Programme (with regard to the general objective of ‘… [enhancing] capacity for civic participation at the Union level’ and the specific objective of ‘[encouraging] democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, …’) can also help develop Europeans' awareness of the recent opportunity brought by Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens' initiative enabling them to make legislative proposals to the Commission on issues in which the EU is competent, with the possibility for such initiatives to be promoted or supported by organisations;

8.

reiterates its commitment and willingness to support the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship;

9.

considers it necessary, with specific reference to the Rights and Citizenship Programme, regarding gender mainstreaming, to ensure the adequate and effective application of the points made in the proposal for a regulation in Recital 12 regarding the continuation and development of activities previously carried out on the basis of three programmes, in particular the programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme), as well as the sections on ‘gender equality’ and ‘diversity and antidiscrimination’ of the EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (Progress), and in Article 4(b) (Specific objectives), with specific reference to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and the principle of equality between women and men;

10.

appreciates, in principle, the plans to replace the six operational programmes for 2007-2013 with two programmes, bearing in mind that the reduction could lead to leaner and more efficient management of the actions planned also with a view to the desirable improved focus in the distribution of funds and the avoidance of geographical imbalances identified among the current programmes by the Commission in the legislative financial statements appended to the proposals;

11.

calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes;

12.

recommends, particularly as regards the planned and indeed timely possibility of private bodies benefiting from the proposed actions, that the Commission also aim to further refine the mechanisms for the preliminary verification of the quality of requests;

13.

stresses that local and regional authorities have a special interest in the issues dealt with in the area for freedom, security and justice, owing above all to the direct impact that these have on the everyday life of people living in the European Union and on the duties of local and regional authorities themselves, and the fact that these authorities have many key powers in policy fields falling within the area;

14.

emphasises that, for local and regional authorities, subsidiarity and proximity towards citizens and residents require a direct approach to the concerns and aspirations of these citizens, for whom local bodies often implement innovative, appropriate solutions;

15.

points out, with particular regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, that involvement in town twinning schemes, as expressly encouraged by the programme itself, has resulted in extremely valuable exchanges of experiences between communities in different geographical areas, strengthening experimentation with successful initiatives through which authorities have also put themselves forward as promoters and facilitators of citizenship;

16.

endorses the possibility set down in the three proposals that all public bodies, including local and regional authorities, could have access to the programmes; points out, however, that the application procedures should not be too costly, particularly with regard to the planned complementarity between the programmes themselves and the related and relevant possibility of using resources allocated to different programmes, provided that the financing covers different items of expenditure;

17.

supports the objectives set down in the programme, as it has expressed in previous opinions, and pledges its ongoing commitment to promoting and fostering their use in neighbouring countries through its cooperation bodies (working groups, joint consultative committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM) in line with the relevant cooperation agreements and in cooperation with the Commission;

18.

stresses the particular importance of creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice for citizens in a world characterised by increasing mobility; welcomes, in line with the ongoing efforts by the Committee of the Regions to promote a system of multilevel protection of fundamental rights, the fact that the progress made towards this area of freedom, security and justice places citizens at the centre of the project;

19.

considers that the issues of security and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms must be brought together in a balanced way, by implementing coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice: in this regard it cannot be denied that while Europe has a solid legal framework for the protection of human rights, in practice this must continue to be improved with a view to guaranteeing the effective exercise of these rights;

20.

welcomes the fact that the three programmes, while displaying objective differences, together contribute to raising public awareness of the European dimension of citizenship, as a means for involvement in the European integration process and contribution to European democracy;

21.

reiterates certain points made in its recent opinion on the new Multiannual Financial Framework post-2013, in which it underlined the significance of providing adequate resources to foster fundamental rights, democracy and citizens' participation in the effort to build European citizenship, and considered of paramount importance the emphasis given in the Europe for Citizens Programme to partnerships in support of EU level civil society, highlighting that the EU's security is closely linked to the furtherance of democracy, good governance and the rule of law in third countries, and that it is incumbent upon the Union to promote these values globally;

22.

stresses, as it has previously pointed out, that it would be helpful to support the various forms of territorial cooperation to implement projects and measures aimed at making European citizenship a reality and which could help reduce obstacles and red tape, including by disseminating the various best practices relating to cross-border services, for example in the areas of health and multilingualism;

23.

hopes that the actions taken in these fundamental areas can be taken into account as priorities for the annual work programmes, especially in relation to the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes;

24.

acknowledges that merging the previous six programmes for Justice and Rights and Citizenship into two and restructuring the Europe for Citizens Programme could create more flexibility when it comes to setting priorities over the seven year programming period, reducing management costs at European level, lessening bureaucratic burdens for the beneficiaries and allowing for more cross-cutting projects that cover several objectives of the programmes;

25.

reiterates the position it has expressed in the past, particularly with regard to the issue of justice, that policies developed in the fields of justice and internal affairs should be coordinated and integrated with other Union policies (especially its economic and social and external policies), as improved coordination of these policies is bound to strengthen their overall effectiveness;

26.

agrees that promoting citizenship is a horizontal issue that must be taken into account in the European Union's other actions, which is why synergies with the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) are important in order to ensure that future EU citizens are informed about European citizenship and know their rights and responsibilities;

27.

hopes, therefore, that practical solutions will be implemented that allow for complementarity and synergies between the three proposed programmes and with other Union instruments, and invites the Commission to provide information on the means it intends to employ in order to guarantee these synergies and complementarity;

28.

is concerned that it will not be sufficiently possible for local and regional authorities to be effectively involved in devising the annual work programmes and evaluating at least two out of the three specific programmes: the process of building a citizens' Europe must go hand in hand with the concrete participation of local and regional authorities at every phase, as they represent vital institutional levels through which to guarantee more democratically legitimate decision-making;

29.

therefore calls for a guarantee that local and regional authorities, through the Committee of the Regions, will formally participate in the drafting of the annual programmes of activities for the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes;

30.

furthermore, considers, with regard to the interim evaluation reports and the ex-post evaluation reports provided by the Commission for the Rights and Citizenship programme, that it should be able to express its own opinion, as is formally provided for with regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, and therefore calls for a specific provision in this connection to be included in the proposal on the Rights and Citizenship programme;

31.

requests that the measurement of the achievement of the specific objectives of the Rights and Citizenship programme also be contingent on the collection of qualitative and quantitative data on the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights, given that the reference to perception at European level is not an adequate measure in terms of results; also refers in this connection to the activities of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality in drawing up corresponding indicators and comparative studies;

32.

supports the important role that the programme proposals should play through awareness raising and information activities for European citizens, particularly as regards wide-ranging access to information, which is increasingly important if they are to play an active part in the political process. The Committee has already highlighted this point, calling on its members to strive to ensure that access to information is effectively guaranteed in the Member States;

33.

believes, with regard to the Justice programme, that the planned continuation of exchanges of staff from national judicial systems, within the broader scope of the European justice network, will gradually strengthen mutual recognition of judicial systems and improve trust between them;

34.

strongly supports, therefore, the specific proposal to fund training activities for judicial staff as laid down in Article 6 of the proposal for the Justice programme, as such training and awareness are key elements in building a Europe of justice;

35.

recommends paying particular attention to this aspect in order to guarantee effective participation from all staff working within the judicial system, in the public and private sectors;

36.

considers that the training activities funded under the Rights and Citizenship Programme should include training in European citizenship for those planning to obtain the citizenship of a Member State, and for schoolchildren, supporting the principle of active citizenship of young people through education;

37.

is in favour of the funding support for the development of online training modules provided for in the programme proposal, which coincides with the CoR's call to promote measures aimed at citizenship training via the media and ICT;

38.

believes that the Justice programme and Rights and Citizenship programme are also a viable means of strengthening local and regional authorities' considerable potential in cross-border cooperation on issues relating to the area of freedom, security and justice;

39.

fully endorses, in principle, the more result-oriented approach chosen by the Commission for the programmes, focused on the use of indicators to measure the achievement of the programmes' objectives; highlights, however, that while a comprehensive list of indicators is contained in the Europe for Citizens proposal, the proposal for the Justice Programme, for example, only mentions a single indicator for each objective and hints to an undefined set of further indicators; suggests, therefore, a specification which is broader in general, preferably referring to qualitative parameters as well as quantitative ones;

40.

highlights that the proposal on the Europe for Citizens programme provides for a more flexible structure than the programme currently underway; it is therefore not necessary to allocate quotas in advance for individual actions that can be carried out under the new programme;

41.

points out, in this connection, that town twinning schemes, as well as continuing to benefit from the programme, could also have available a fixed quota set in advance, which in the current programme is equivalent to almost one third of the total budget and could be maintained at this level;

42.

therefore calls for a good part of the overall budget of the Europe for Citizens programme to be allocated to activities that take place in the context of town twinning, particularly given the recognised, important role that twinning plays in building strong and sustainable contacts between citizens, including those of third countries;

43.

reiterates that, as the Parliament and the Council have recently introduced the European Heritage Label as an instrument to enhance the shared cultural heritage of the Member States while respecting national and regional diversity, the Europe for Citizens programme could, in order to pursue its stated objectives, also tap into the potential of the sites that will receive this new label, in the same way that the European Cities of Culture promote European identity and citizenship.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/51

—

welcomes the Commission's attempts to streamline and simplify greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting requirements but requests amendments to the Commission's proposal to provide a spatial/regional context for greenhouse gas emissions and projections and low carbon development plans (PLCDs);

—

requests that all the data/methodologies used be publicly available and not privately owned, that they be transparent and therefore replicable, and set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity and to facilitate policy in a multi-level governance policy setting;

—

calls for the spatial impact on emissions to be a material consideration in the wider policies, programmes, funding allocations and projects of the Commission;

—

refers the Commission to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions;

—

recommends harmonising the projections of Member States to provide a set of consistent projections, including reporting on the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency;

—

reiterates its call at COP 17 in Durban, as well as at previous UNFCCC conferences, for the recognition of climate mitigation and adaptation actions at the local and regional level.

Rapporteur

Neil SWANNICK (UK/PES), Member of Manchester City Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change

COM(2011) 789 final

—

GhG emissions; and

—

Projections and low carbon development plans (PLCD);

—

publicly available and not privately owned;

—

transparent and therefore replicable; and

—

set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity

—

the proposal and the stakeholder consultation and impact assessment that preceded it;

—

the inclusion of projections and mitigation actions being presented alongside inventory data;

—

the commitment to harmonise international and EC monitoring and reporting and facilitating the implementation of the monitoring and reporting mechanism. However, we expect the EC to utilise commitments within the ‘regional framework’ to extend the proposal;

—

attempts to streamline and simplify the monitoring and reporting requirements in the proposal;

—

coherence between GhG (greenhouse gas) and local air emissions estimation;

—

the EU Clearinghouse Mechanism and hopes that it will provide a useful tool for national, regional and local policy makers acting on climate policy;

—

the extension in consideration to other impacts of aviation on global warming.

—

the explicit mentioning in ‘the proposal’ of adaptation as a local issue without an explicit mentioning of mitigation as a local issue will, in the long term, hinder the effectiveness of mitigation policy;

—

there is no guidance regarding the true expansion in scope that the proposal brings to Member States. This is needed to help avoid overspends on the practitioners that will ultimately deliver many of these amendments in the proposal;

—

there is no allocation to the regions of at least 30 % of revenues generated from auctioning of allowances. This is required to help implement Europe’s 2020 targets on renewable energies and energy efficiency;

—

the administrative, technical and financial burden of additional monitoring and reporting requirements are likely to extend to the regions, so they should be proportionate;

—

a pursuit of marginal incremental improvements to data sets should be avoided if it displaces the implementation of mitigation or adaptation policy.

—

the usefulness of an inventory is greatly boosted by a PLCD with a near-, medium- and long-term outlook;

—

the emissions data that will result from ‘the proposal’ is central to understanding the strategic direction, priorities and performance of the European Union, its Member States and regions;

—

however, to maximise use, the data should be presented alongside the core economic and social performance data used regularly by decision makers.

—

The emissions data and its quality should be the direct responsibility of the central statistical and data service of the European Union. This should include a robust, transparent and accountable central process to verify the accuracy/certainty of nationally provided datasets and PLCDs.

—

The following cumulative total emissions release, since 1990, should be provided by each Member State:

—

the spatial element provides for better monitoring of progress and evidence than generic presentations at a national level provide;

—

the regions are closer to the citizens, than Member States, making them able to communicate information on climate-related issues to the public, which is one of the goals of the monitoring and reporting mechanism.

—

We refer the EC to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn, ICLEI and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions.

—

It is in line with the ‘regional framework’.

—

It sends a clear political message in this direction.

—

The impact, in terms of an emissions reduction, of national policy, will vary between regions within a Member State and should be understood.

—

Action needs to be taken closer to the source of emissions, so if data is provided that can be used locally it is more likely to be acted upon.

—

Considering Articles 191 and 192 of ‘The Treaty’ it would be proportionate to do so.

—

Regions will contribute differing levels of emissions reduction depending on their economic make-up and infrastructure. These levels of emissions reduction will vary between regions both within Member States and wider Europe.

—

Despite being close to the policy implementation these authorities are not consistently consulted by Member States on climate-related issues.

—

Meeting the mitigation challenge is not a top-down process.

—

develop PLCDs;

—

set-up monitoring mechanisms;

—

timely cost effective access to data;

—

avoid commoditisation and proliferation of data and collection tools;

—

ensure consistency between PLCDs;

—

strengthen data quality, reliability and confidence;

—

meet obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the Cancun Agreements and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

—

the CoR understands that this is due to a misunderstanding of ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’, the intention is to consider as zero private (rather than commercial) aircraft i.e. largely light aircraft and helicopters that largely use small private airfields. This should be stated clearly;

—

no methodology is provided for marine emissions from maritime craft using European ports so the proposal should explicitly state that the EC is waiting for legislation before it forms a methodology.

13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/61

—

given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, would welcome a substantially greater increase in the programme’s budget, whilst recognising that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded;

—

supports the new approach of ‘Integrated Projects’, however requests that accessibility and involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged; that marine environment, soil and noise as priority should be added as further primarily relevant areas of integrated projects; and that appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework and with Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 are put in place;

—

believes that the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal and suggests that VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered;

—

recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project, on a full- or part-time basis;

—

proposes that the upper rate co-financing rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations) and in the outermost regions;

—

requests that the LIFE programme shall also be open to Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU which are party to the ‘Overseas Association Decision’ (Council Decision 2001/822/EC), which are responsible for much of the EU’s biodiversity.

Rapporteur

Kay TWITCHEN (UK/NI), Member of Essex County Council

Reference document

Proposal for a regulation of the Council and the European Parliament on the establishment of Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

COM(2011) 874 final – 2011/0428 (COD)

1.

reiterates its view that the LIFE programme constitutes an important instrument in helping to fund local and regional environmental policies and projects with a European added value, and has helped mobilise efforts by local and regional authorities. It has also helped to create partnerships, thus strengthening cooperation structures and facilitating the exchange of experience and information at local and regional level;

2.

welcomes the intention to continue LIFE into the new funding period. Believes that this will ensure a more effective intervention, create synergies by coordinating EU and national activities, and increase the visibility of environmental and climate actions;

3.

shares the Commission’s view that environment and climate action should be an integral element of most EU policies. However the main EU funding instruments do not address all environmental and climate specific needs, hence the continuing need for a separate Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, building upon the achievements the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 for the period 2007-13. Thus it complements the ‘mainstreaming’ approach to achieving environmental and climate objectives across the EU budget, through the financing of environment and climate projects not eligible for funding elsewhere;

4.

notes that evaluation of the existing LIFE programme has highlighted that its impact is limited by a lack of strategic focus. The new programme would therefore introduce a flexible top-down approach, and establish two discrete sub-programmes, covering Environment and Climate Action with clearly identified priorities;

5.

notes the importance in this regard of maintaining enough flexibility in the programme. Prioritisation must not result in excessive restrictions or overly prescriptive criteria. As in the current programme, the key yardstick should be the quality of the projects proposed;

6.

considers that the LIFE Regulation should make specific reference to the need to seek synergies between the different strands, e.g. to ensure that LIFE-funded climate projects have a beneficial effect on biodiversity, and that LIFE-funded environment projects be climate-proofed. Insofar as the Commission has indicated the potential synergies between the two sub-programmes and for projects to benefit multiple objectives, it will be important to ensure that this is achieved;

7.

reiterates its call (1) for the LIFE programme to continue to support communication and information projects, with an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve local and regional authorities. In this context, welcomes the proposed priority area of governance and information in each of the two sub-programmes;

8.

welcomes the proposal that, in order to ensure coherence of the two LIFE sub-programmes, they will be within the framework of one single Multi-annual Work Programme, with one single set of common implementing rules, one single call for proposals, and dealing with them together in the single LIFE Committee, and expresses concern that there should not be divergent procedures and priorities for different sub-programmes;

9.

welcomes that the European Commission has consulted extensively in developing this proposal and has taken into account many views expressed by stakeholders, and by the CoR (2);

10.

welcomes the emphasis given in Article 3 of the proposal to defining indicators for measuring the success of LIFE. Recommends the addition of indicators that measure and promote good governance and communication within every LIFE project. CoR has urged the LIFE programme to foster targeted - and thus more effective - ways of communication and capacity-building activities in each LIFE project;

11.

notes that the proposal excludes in Article 10 market replication-orientated private sector innovation, since it will be covered by Horizon 2020. This allows for LIFE to focus on eco-innovation by local and regional authorities and on finding solutions that are most often best implemented through public–private partnerships. Therefore CoR welcomes the shift to public-sector innovation and the possibility of public-private partnerships;

12.

welcomes that, as requested by the CoR (3), the proposal in Article 11 allows for recurring activities provided that projects operate on the basis of exemplary procedures which can be applied to other regions and that they will be subject to standards for monitoring and communicating results to the public;

13.

believes that support via integrated projects for Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 will be a key future element under the LIFE’s Biodiversity priority area. The CoR requests that, in keeping with the institutional framework of each Member State, regional authorities should be in charge of developing PAFs and takes note of the recent initiatives launched by the European Commission on financing Natura 2000 (4);

14.

strongly welcomes that LIFE support for environment governance has been strengthened by making it a priority area in the proposed regulation (Article 12). The CoR believes that this will increase visibility of potential governance projects and that local and regional authorities will become important beneficiaries of this new priority area. The CoR has urged LIFE to contribute to the strengthening of local and regional authorities’ administrative capacities and to give an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve LRA and have significant impact at EU level (5);

15.

considers that this priority area should promote knowledge sharing on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law by supporting networks, training, and best practice sharing projects, in particular of local and regional authorities active in the field, at European level;

16.

welcomes the creation of a new sub-programme on climate action, which can play a role in promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient and climate-proofed actions and investment. Welcomes this in view of the EU’s international commitments to reducing GHGs in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and the future global climate agreement to be negotiated by 2015, as well as of the EU’s objectives under the Climate and Energy Package, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy 2050 (6);

17.

notes however that the proposed budget is a rather small part of the overall LIFE programme (25 %). Thus LIFE Climate has a very limited potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. It should therefore promote multiple environmental benefits, such as natural areas, which are essential for ensuring good air quality and display considerable biodiversity (peatlands and forests) or contribute to the creation of green infrastructure, as an integrated approach to maintaining biodiversity and to keeping the repercussions of climate change in check;

18.

welcomes that the main focus of Integrated Projects will be on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans;

19.